Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. The axes for the classification

[Ermanno Pietrosemoli <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
regarding
========

4) Technologies employed (Javier’s list)

* normal WiFi

* WiLD

* modified WiFi with TDMA MAC

* 802.16-compliant systems over non-licensed bands

* white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions

* satellite solutions

* low-cost optical fiber systems

===========

I have some comments:

WiLD is a form  of modified WiFi with TDMA MAC, so I would group them both
as "modified WiFi for long distance"


regarding "white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions", I have not been able
to find any White Space vendor that offers "802.22 compliant solutions",
the standard is fine, but no vendor acrtually offers it. The White space
vendors that I am familiar with all offer proprietary solutions, Adaptrum,
Carlson, 6th harmonics, Doodle Labs.


I read that the Japanese NICT did a deployment of "802.22 and 802.11af
compliant equipment" but have not been able to obtain any technical
details, so I suggest to just label this as "White Spaces Solutions"



Best regards,

Ermanno


On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> You are right: the current version of the draft says something a bit
> confusing:
>
>
>
>    Different criteria are used in order
>
>    to build a classification as e.g., the ownership of the equipment,
>
>    the way the network is organized, the participatory model, the
>
>    extensibility, if they are driven by a community, a company or a
>
>    local (public or private) stakeholder,
>
>
>
> Taking into account your proposals, I have tried to build a scheme with
> five “axes” of the classification. They could perhaps be:
>
>
>
> 1) Commercial model / promoter
>
> * community
>
> * public stakeholder
>
> * company
>
> * crowdshared
>
> * shared infrastructure
>
> * research testbed
>
>
>
> 2) Goals and motivation (Henning’s classification)
>
> * reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user,
> or both)
>
> * providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional
> carrier-based financing)
>
> * reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network
> administration)
>
> * leveraging expertise
>
> * reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy, in general;
> relevance, etc.)
>
>
>
> 3) Typical scenarios
>
> * urban
>
> * rural
>
> * rural in developing countries
>
>
>
> 4) Technologies employed (Javier’s list)
>
> * normal WiFi
>
> * WiLD
>
> * modified WiFi with TDMA MAC
>
> * 802.16-compliant systems over non-licensed bands
>
> * white spaces - 802.22 compliant solutions
>
> * satellite solutions
>
> * low-cost optical fiber systems
>
>
>
> 5) Network management
>
> * Centralized
>
> * Distributed
>
>
>
>
>
> Do all of them make sense to you?
>
>
>
> Are they “orthogonal” enough?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
>
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> *De:* gaia [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *En
> nombre de *Javier Simó
> *Enviado el:* martes, 10 de febrero de 2015 16:30
> *Para:* [e-mail]
> *Asunto:* Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for
> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification
>
>
>
>
>
> El 10/02/15 a las #4, Maria Uden escribió:
>
> Yes, and the technical details can be presented by themselves, in even
> more detail, without referring to the socio-technical context?
>
> In my humble point of view,
>     - yes, technical details can be presented by themselves without
> referring to the context, provided that later in the document technology is
> going to be crossed in the matrix with the different alternative networks
> together with other vertical descriptors.
>
>     - however, i think that we should not go very deep into the details
> in describing technologies. They are described either in standards or in
> papers that can be referenced. Techniques that are well known and that are
> explained in books or articles should also be cited. We should be able to
> summarize those things, with appropriate references, instead of extending
> the document with them unnecessarily. The accent of the document should not
> be in the technologies, but in the definition of the alternative networks
> with the discussion of all the relevant characteristics (socio-technical
> context, technologies used, bussiness model, ...)
>
> Best
> Javier
>
>
> A test bed can have different underlying reasons, for instance be thought
> of as a way to raise funding for a community network.
>
> Maria
>
>
>
> *From:* Henning G Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* den 10 februari 2015 15:30
> *To:* Maria Uden
> *Cc:* Jose Saldana; [e-mail]; Matthew Ford
> *Subject:* Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for
> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification
>
>
>
> Another approach is to look at the underlying motivation for these
> approaches, i.e., addressing deployment and usage hurdles:
>
>
>
> * reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end user,
> or both)
>
> * providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional
> carrier-based financing)
>
> * reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network
> administration)
>
> * leveraging expertise
>
> * reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy, in general;
> relevance, etc.)
>
>
>
> Most of the examples given, except the testbed, seem to fall into one or
> more of these categories. Given that there are likely more solutions than
> the examples discussed, it might be helpful to focus on the goals, as that
> then also allows to evaluate whether and to what extent a solution meets
> the goal. Otherwise, it's just technology for coolness' sake.
>
>
>
> Henning
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Maria Uden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The classification is interesting as information but, is it not only
> examples, after all? Or, what is the purpose? An analogy: My experience as
> teacher is that the more detailed descriptions the more the students will
> ask – because each detail opens questions. Like the fractals one sees in
> these nice maths/science pictures. They will feel insecure and instead of
> getting to action themselves wonder if they can really do it, as it is so
> defined into details what “it shall be about”.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Maria
>
>
>
> *From:* gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Jose Saldana
> *Sent:* den 9 februari 2015 16:27
> *To:* [e-mail]; 'Matthew Ford'
> *Subject:* Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for
> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Mat has sent this suggestion:
>
>
>
> > A general observation: I find the taxonomical aspect a bit lacking at
> present. I would
>
> > like to have a sharper identification of the characteristics of
> identified alternative
>
> > network types that distinguishes them. Is it the commercial model? Is it
> the
>
> > centralisation or decentralisation of network management? The
> descriptions are fine
>
> > as far as they go, but if there's something unique about the different
> types that
>
> > clearly distinguishes them it would help to call that out better. Maybe
> a matrix of the
>
> > various identified types of network and some of the important
> characteristics would
>
> > be appropriate.
>
>
>
> This is the current classification (section 2):
>
>
>
>      2.1.  Community Networks
>
>        2.1.1.  Free Networks
>
>      2.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
>
>      2.3.  Shared infrastructure model
>
>      2.4.  Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party
> stakeholders
>
>      2.5.  Testbeds for research purposes
>
>
>
> Mat, are you suggesting to include a table like this?:
>
>
>
>              | Commercial model | centralization | technologies |
> typical   |
>
>              |                  |                |              |
> scenarios |
>
>
> +------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+
>
> CNs          |                  |                |
> |           |
>
> WISPx        |                  |                |
> |           |
>
> Shared inf   |                  |                |
>           |           |
>
> Crowdshared  |                  |                |
> |           |
>
> Testbeds     |                  |                |
> |           |
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gaia mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>
> Subdirector de Ord. Docente
>
> ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
>
> D-204, Departamental III
>
> Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
>
> Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
>
> Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>


-- 
Professor Ermanno Pietrosemoli
Telecommunications/ICT for Development Laboratory (T/ICT4D)
Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, GGH, Via Beirut
7, Trieste 34151 Italy
[e-mail]       http://wireless.ictp.it
-------
Presidente
Fundación Escuela Latinoamericana de Redes (EsLaRed)
www.EsLaRed.net